[tsc] [gfsg] Technical Strategy Document

[Linesch, Mark]

Dave,

I re-reading the TS&R document, I have one additional comment that may
or may not be controversial ... 

In the document, we start out Section 1.3 with a statement of vision
"Distributed computing across mulitple administrative domains". Although
I like the simplicity of this statement, I am a little concerned that it
excludes "distributed computing within an existing domain" I believe our
stakeholders want grid architectures and standards "both within and
across mulitiple administrative domains". Mark


From: Linesch, Mark 
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:35 AM
To: 'David Snelling'; GFSG GFSG; TSC
Subject: RE: [gfsg] Technical Strategy Document

David,

Thanks for moving this document along and maturing the content and my
thanks to the entire TSC for the hard work and thoughts!

Regarding immediate tactical feedback (Nits:-)

1. All the page numbers are set to 18
2. 1.2 -  you still have the term "while section 4 we identify the
current result of this process in the form of high value use cases and
scenarios". I believe this should be "capabilities" which is the term I
think we are now using 3. 1.3 - The last sentence "Our focus is on
standards and tools to effectively build and utilize the last of these"
is a little confusing... Is the "last of these "Grids built on dedicated
resources ranging from blade servers in a corporate data center to
tans-national collections of supercomputers" or does this statement only
refer to "trans-national supercomputers". I would reword for clarity.
4. Section 3, in the paragraph below the picture, the word "to" needs to
be included in the sentence "Each of these groups meets to capture
requirements that are particular [to] that group.
5. Section 3, "range of actions and responses", there seem to be some
redundancy here. Bullet 4 talks about "ignore as out of scope" (not
great language) and bullet 10 has the same idea. Bullet 2 "start a new
standards group" and bullet 6 "form a new standards working group" also
overlap. I would reword bullet 7 to make it less "Enterprise-specific"
and clearer. Possibly something like ... "Form a new Research or
Community group to develop a best practice document that might offer an
interim solution until a more standardized approach can be matured and
adopted."
6. Section 4, Title .... The title is "High Priority Capabilities" but
then you go on to explain that "no priority has been associated with the
list" - seems inconsistent. Also the first sentence needs CAPs 7. I
think you need to unify the "tables". Table 1 has Category/Capability,
Table 2 has Capability but they are not organized by "Category" (except
that our Areas are a type of Category :-). I would opt'd for changing
table 2 to align with Category/Capability and loose the Area
designation. This way you have a consistent table throughout showing (1)
Category/Capability; (2) Category/Capability/OGF
Specification/Status/Milestone; (3) Category/Capability/Group or Comment
and Maturity level. I think this will simplify things a little.

Longer-term feedback for after the public comment period I think we need
to bring into this document a little more of the broader context and
landscape upon which we are operating. The notion that
(1) we don't want to or have to do all the standards for distributed
computing and so we collaborate extensively with other Standards
Development organizations and leverage existing and well adopted
standards extensively needs to be better articulated
(2) we are no longer in a green field situation. Organizations around
the world are building and operating grids today and thus our
standardization efforts should be informed by both architecture and
community practice. And ... we may want to state what our "architectural
approach" or "principles" are for the reader in a future version
(3) I would continue to like to see work done on relating
Categories/Capabilities to Use Cases to enable the reader to make the
connection to relevance. I know this is continuing to be discussed ... 
(4) not to state the obvious, but our current gap analysis needs quite a
bit of maturing :-)

Thanks again to the team. I think this is a reasonable start and I very
much appreciate the hard work that it has taken by the team and
contributors to reach this first milestone.

All the best,

Mark


Mark Linesch: Open Grid Forum (OGF): Hewlett Packard
281-514-0322 (Tel): 281-414-7082 (Cell) mark.linesch at hp.com :
linesch at ogf.org

 
-----Original Message-----
From: gfsg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:gfsg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of
David Snelling
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 10:49 AM
To: GFSG GFSG; TSC
Subject: [gfsg] Technical Strategy Document

Folks,

This is now (I believe) ready for Public Comment. I have done as much as
possible with the time and effort available (mine and other's).  
The process we agreed to at the F2F is as follows:

1) Between now and next Friday, this document is in "WG Last Call", with
the combined forces of the GFSG and the TSC acting as the WG.

2) Please for minor changes send text-only based suggestions in an email
to me, but the document should be pretty clean now.

3) Major suggestions for future work should be emailed to me for
inclusion in the trackers for later versions.

3) Major objections at your peril.

This version is changed tracked, except for the tables 1 and 3, which
are all new.

Enjoy.

-- 

Take care:

     Dr. David Snelling < David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com >
     Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe
     Hayes Park Central
     Hayes End Road
     Hayes, Middlesex  UB4 8FE

     +44-208-606-4649 (Office)
     +44-208-606-4539 (Fax)
     +44-7768-807526  (Mobile)